Thursday, August 6, 2020

75 North Seventh Street: A New Development

The Register-Star reported yesterday that the Galvan Foundation has offered to increase the PILOT payment for the proposed building at 75 North Seventh Street to $100,000 in the first year: "Galvan increases PILOT sum." 

It will be remembered that the initial PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) that Galvan sought was $77,000 in the first year, or $1,000 per unit. In July, Dan Kent, vice president for initiatives at Galvan, announced that they had been able to increase the payment in the first year to $80,000. On Tuesday, Kent said they were increasing the PILOT payment to $100,000 in the first year, which works out to $1,299 per unit.

The article also reports:
The Hudson Catskill Housing Coalition is organizing a phone banking campaign to mobilize support for the PILOT among registered voters in Hudson's 4th and 5th wards Saturday. Callers will target registered voters in the wards represented by aldermen who opposed the agreement at the council's July meeting.
The phone banking campaign is being organized by Quintin Cross. 

The four aldermen who voted against supporting the PILOT on July 21 were Fourth Ward aldermen John Rosenthal and Malachi Walker, Fifth Ward alderman Dominic Merante, and First Ward alderman Jane Trombley. The other Fifth Ward alderman, Eileen Halloran abstained from voting because she had not seen the amended resolution they were being asked to vote on.

Galvan's application for funding for the project from NYS Homes and Community Development is due on August 28, and a demonstration of support from the City, in the form of a resolution passed by the Common Council, is critical to the success of the funding request. The Council will vote on a new resolution of support for the PILOT at its August meeting on Tuesday, August 18, at 7:00 p.m.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK

13 comments:

  1. Is there an estimate for what taxes on a comparable building of this scale with this many units would be if it were not a pilot program? I think it would be useful for us to understand the value of the PILOT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. good question. the value of the building is about 20 million. the land, not sure.

      would the taxes be in excess of $ 400,000.00 a year. i think that is low.
      it could be as high as $ 500,000.00

      Affordable housing is really expensive.

      Delete
    2. however, the costs incurred to the City of Hudson could be much higher than the taxes paid. Buildings like this need alot of city and local services, and school services, and State services.

      School costs for 20 students is 600,000 per year, that is per year, for 30 students it would be 900,000 per year,
      for just this building.

      the building could cost the town 1.5 million dollars per year in total services, if someone really did the annual budget for it.

      that is why these projects usually are built in large cities with huge populations -- so that the costs are spread out amongst alot of people -- not 6000 people -- many of whom do not pay any taxes anyway.

      the taxpayer base in Hudson is tiny, and the costs are large. this project will break the bank. It just will. I analyze costs for a living -- i do budgets all the time.

      Delete
  2. What makes a bad idea better? Not a lot of phone calls -- even if the organizer has been convicted of stealing from the tax payers. But paying your fair share of taxes would go a long way towards convincing voters that this isn't just another Galvanian attempt at a massive bit of corporate welfare. Of course here in Hudson the Council has a sad tradition of facilitating Galvan's raids on the City treasury. Last time, it was $100k in cash. This time seems more expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My home is a 2 family in the City of Hudson. My tenant currently pays less than the middle income rent proposed for this project. The 2020 City and School taxes on that unit are well over $6,000.

    Yes, thats over six times more than whats being proposed to be paid to our City and Schools per unit - for THIRTY YEARS.

    We certainly do need affordable housing in this City. Propose a plan that doesn't rely on a municipal wealth transfer to the out-of-state 1%. Otherwise this is DOA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXACTLY !!!! so 77 families not supporting the schools, and if some of them have cars, where are they parking? Galvan's offer to increase tax payments is pitiful. Why is there no offer for parking? Why can't Galvan use apartments in other (vacant) properties? How about knocking down 2 condemned building at 212 and 210 State St (my neighborhood) and building a 2 story building with 12-14 housing units? I dont mind living next to affordable housing. How about replacing something rather than this?

      Delete
  4. As a resident of the 4th ward (at least I think I live in the 4th ward - rumor has it that there is a map out there that somebody drew that I can check just to make sure), I feel honored, at last, at last, for this one glorious shining little moment, to be "needed" in the public square at last by someone out there. My phone number is 949-885-6516. I am just trying to be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Taxes are irrelevant, it is an oversized building out of scale with the neighborhood that will be transformed in a negative way. It also sets a precedent for an agenda that is out of touch with the present developmental direction of the city. This will not be a one shot deal, but the first in a series of degrading projects, that's the way it goes.

    It is a twist of language to call these projects developments, and the people who build them developers, because the word implies progress and improvement. They degrade neighborhoods and do not provide a benefit to the residents currently living here, whose interests the City Council supposedly represents, not the interests of individuals living in other cities and towns who will invariably be the ones filling the apartments.

    Is social engineering really the job of local government, or is the role maintaining and improving conditions for the existing residents? It is a serious question if you think about it. Is the role of local government to administrate, manage and regulate, or is to actively intervene and engineer the population and economy of neighborhoods?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since we will apparently have people from Catskill attempting to influence our future, it would behoove those of us who actually live and pay taxes in Hudson to attend next week’s Common Council meeting to make our voices heard. Please attend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 77 apartments are going to need a lot of NEW sewer and water services provided by the City of Hudson. How will this need for more than 100 toilets be met? Who will finance the city's sewage project for this building? Is that included in the $22 million budget ---or does the City have to pay for that itself?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This project is a GHETTO with an on site bar as an amenity. I've raised the parking issue before,I raise it again, its my neighborhood. Hudson does not need charity from Galvin or the state. Galvin can find something else to do with this site that benefits everyone, not just Galvin. This project is a Trojan horse!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXACTLY. Galvan is helping only itself.
      Always has.

      Delete
  9. WHAT ABOUT A SERIOUS AFFORDABLE SUPERMARKET ON THAT SITE ... that's something that would benefit everyone.

    ReplyDelete